Hi Fernando. SS only accepts .eps files of vector images. Vectors have no resolution, as resolution is a raster term. A raster is created from a vector by an output device, like an image-setter or printer when the vector is rasterized (made into a bitmap image). The physical dimensions of a vector might be the measurements you noted, but that isn't resolution.
So the physical size you submit doesn't matter, since it's a vector and scalable by the user to any size. SS will only accept one version of each vector, no matter how many times they are submitted at different physical dimensions.
I would recommend submitting vectors at very small dimensions for quick uploads by you and downloads by customers. You can zoom in on the vector before saving it, so it fills a customer's screen when opened if you want to. Hope that helps. Good luck! 🙂

I believe this is a mistake pure and simple. Your original illustrations don't even need a reference, because they look entirely vector, not auto-traced from other media or manually traced from a photo. It looks as if reviewers just perpetuated the initial reference rejection that was originally assigned. I don't know why they would still be rejected after you provided everything you did.
My only guess: Did you provide a reference with every single image (and not just on one of the images for all of them)? Every image needs a separate reference attached if they request it. It can be the same reference, if your reference applies to all of the images, but it should be separately attached to every single image.
Other than that, you can try this, although it's a lot of uneccesary trouble ...
Change all the images in your vector program. In the example above, add another bow, move something or change a color. Then make new jpg previews. Assign new names to each and resubmit with the "no reference used" box checked (can't remember where that is).
Their system MAY see these as new submissions if the vectors themselves, colors and previews are different, and you MAY get a fresh start with the batch. Sorry to hear of your trouble. Good luck! ?

Hi Firn: SS doesn't want a reference photo. The reviewer may think your images were hand drawn in traditional media (like pen and paper), scanned on a scanner, and then autotraced in your vector program. If you did that, which is fine, just upload your scanned original drawings as your references.
If they were drawn completely from scratch onscreen (tablet or desktop) just click the box "digital image drawn without reference" when uploading to let them know. If you've already done this and are still being rejected, just take a screenshot of the image being drawn on your screen and include that as a reference. You can even put a note on the screenshot indicating you drew these yourself onscreen without using any reference.
The look of an auto-traced scan can be nearly identical to some vector brushes, like "chalk" or "charcoal" effects. I think SS is just trying to make sure contributors don't scan other people's stuff and submit it as their own. Good luck. ?

I think the third image (with the satellite) that oleschwander linked to is an altered illustration, but the other two? Maybe a vignette or color shift is considered modifying the image. Dunno. I do remember SS fairly recently stopped accepting public domain images altogether, even as a basis for vectors, like portraits of famous post-1900 people made from their public domain wikipedia shots. My guess is they don't want to sell stuff available for free from NASA since NASA doesn't want them sold, but some might slip through. Just a guess. ?

Vectors have a 15MB file size limit or I believe the system automatically rejects. The rejection messages I've seen just mention that restriction. Did your reject say your file was more than 50MB? That's weird, but it's been a while since I got one. I'm OK here if they're under 15MB. ?

I believe NASA images can be used if they are an element of another illustration or if they are modified. In fact, I think they're now one of the few (only?) types of public domain images SS allows to be incorporated in submissions. Maybe because their ownership (the U.S. public because they're tax-funded) is easy to prove. I do believe SS forbids sales of unaltered NASA images though. ?

Hi Alexey: As a buyer, SS saves time. Many of the images I've bought, I could have made myself, but it was worth the $ to focus on the rest of the project and not spend time building pieces. I might recommend uploading them individually and ALSO as a grouping. (SS allows this.) That allows the buyer more choice and you can see what sells best. ?

I agree it may be that raster (bitmap) effects have been applied. They can be hard to find if you don't remember using them! Open the "links" palette. It may be empty, but then select all the vectors and go to Object > Expand. If the empty links palette suddenly explodes with a bunch of linked bitmaps, that's the problem. As suggested above, checking the vector in outline mode is a good practice. Everything visible in the image needs to show a path, and there can't be any links once the image is expanded. Good luck! ?

Look at the paths in wireframe view. Are there hundreds of vector points for a plain circle? Are there lots of open paths on filled objects? Were solid fills created by "coloring them in" with a pen on a tablet, generating a scribble of unnecessary paths? Were brush effects used and not expanded (where lines in the illustration look like chalk or paint, but in wireframe view are just a single path)? No real way to find the problem without seeing the paths. ?
My guess is SS believed a customer might have to clean up the illustration before using it, resulting in a reject for path construction. Or it could just be an error in the review. All guesses though, without seeing the paths. Good luck!

^^^ Agree. ? I've bought amazing, crystal-clear sports images, Laurin Rinder-quality flower closeups that could be in a gallery and lots of other great photos and illo here. BUT, I've also bought tons of awful pics, blurry vacation snapshots and terrible vector drawings. It totally depends on the project. I personally love the huge selection.
That beautiful, crystal-clear sports shot is a bad image for the dirty-looking ad my client wants. But that blurry, blown-out snapshot taken on a helmet cam is perfect.
With me anyway, stock is just one piece of a final project, not the end product. "Good" or "bad" depends on usage. I appreciate SS not deciding for me.
I wouldn't worry too much about "bad" art getting accepted and nudging out your work. If an image fits a project, a buyer will buy it. Just one opinion! ?

Hi Vaniljefeldt: It looks as if you've done such a good job, SS believes a photo reference might have been used. If it was me, I would open a copy of the illustration in Photoshop and maybe zoom in a bit on the tree line to show brush strokes. I would write "Painted from imagination without any reference" right on the image and take a screenshot of that. If you upload that screenshot as a reference image, they might accept. You might even include "digital painting" or something like that in the title. Good luck. ?

Apologies. Should have written "I think."
I don't know SS's code. Just noting info from submission guidelines (that the vector and jpg preview are linked based on file names) and the obvious (that uploaded file names are replaced with SS's numbering system, which appear with your images on the site).
As for file name lengths, you would certainly know better than me. But it seems that a file name like "Mandala business card design template vector collection. Set of luxury golden ornaments for identity, web and prints with sample text.eps" might get shortened and cause problems with the linking of correct previews?
Could be wrong. Just trying to help 2shoes get her nice vectors approved! ?